But if folks fro is that stiff they need better conditioner and products lol

haha. they got them dense, solid fro's, they don't have the fluff. Or they have twists. Even with a softie like mine i can definitely feel it when it hits the ball, restricts my hand for a split sec. try taking the ball to yours, you'll see my friend!

But if folks fro is that stiff they need better conditioner and products lol

haha. they got them dense, solid fro's, they don't have the fluff. Or they have twists. Even with a softie like mine i can definitely feel it when it hits the ball, restricts my hand for a split sec. try taking the ball to yours, you'll see my friend!

But if folks fro is that stiff they need better conditioner and products lol

haha. they got them dense, solid fro's, they don't have the fluff. Or they have twists. Even with a softie like mine i can definitely feel it when it hits the ball, restricts my hand for a split sec. try taking the ball to yours, you'll see my friend!

I got the fluffiest fro in all the land right now potna and you will respect it as such

But if folks fro is that stiff they need better conditioner and products lol

haha. they got them dense, solid fro's, they don't have the fluff. Or they have twists. Even with a softie like mine i can definitely feel it when it hits the ball, restricts my hand for a split sec. try taking the ball to yours, you'll see my friend!

I got the fluffiest fro in all the land right now potna and you will respect it as such

Yesss!! It is scary! Way too fickle of thing , but it's where we shoot from..

I gave you 2 thumbs up.

thanks a lot man! I was rushing to make it before Ingram's laker workout!haha
My views count is stuck on it right now, but once it goes up to a "respectable youtube level" I'll send it to players and shooting coaches like Tracy Murray on twitter. wooh.

KIROE, a bit OT, but in most of these vids, the elbow isn't really at 90 degrees at the setpoint. Closer to 70-75 degrees or so. Is this recommended? Besides Steph it seems most NBA players aren't at 90 deg. I find I can't get enough power with a 90 degree shot (works for midrange tho), but obviously if the elbow isn't at 90 then the motion becomes slightly two motion. Not great for an average-athleticism 5'9 guy

I think the 1motion vs 2 motion thing isn't so cut and dry. It's really more about having a set-point or not. A set point is a point you take the ball to and then you start your shot pocket/up&over motion from there.
Better described like that, because - even a bigman like Biyombo who takes the ball to the back of his head and then flinging the ball on a rope at the hoop - he's doing that in one motion. It's not *take it back* *pause* *shooting motion forward* . It's one motion, really. That's a big advice of mine with shooting, one motion, but in that sense. That's huge.
Even Harden, and all of those great shooter in the vid like you said, don't do the 90degree angle - the ball is going back at an angle.
Durant cockcsback but from the set-point to the release its one motion, and that is absolutely key.
Steph has no set point at all

It's all about their length, man. that's why each player's shot is different and forms can't be replicated. Crabbe must have long enough arms to shoot over his 'fro, it was plain as day in the vid that it made his shot flat as hell - who's to say he wouldn't be a better shooter if he didn't have to start his shot pocket all the way above his 'fro.

It's really common sense, in a more simple way - forget their shooting %. you saw where DLo took the ball above his hairline, and with hair he has to change it. Same with Smart. And when you change your form you get a different result. And when you can't go back ->up-> over you extend your arm outward and have an incompetent trajectory. that's what all of those guys did.
I do think that there are cases of guys who shoot better with their hair being a natural set point, but that's what it is, it's in the way.

Hield -- most of the guys i critiqued in the video were really good college shooters. Like i also said in the video, even if you don't have to use that headspace for 3pt range, then maybe you do for midrange -- and that's because you have to shoot the ball up and over the rim when you're standing directly under it, right - you can't shoot anything of a flat shot when you're one 1foot away from the rim --- now protract and scale that back - you need more arch at 15feet than you do at 23feet for that same reason, just protract that back. And to get that arch you need to take the ball up and over more, which you can't do if your hair is in the way. DX stated that Hield was bad from midrange, maybe that's why.

It's all about their length, man. that's why each player's shot is different and forms can't be replicated. Crabbe must have long enough arms to shoot over his 'fro, it was plain as day in the vid that it made his shot flat as hell - who's to say he wouldn't be a better shooter if he didn't have to start his shot pocket all the way above his 'fro.

It's really common sense, in a more simple way - forget their shooting %. you saw where DLo took the ball above his hairline, and with hair he has to change it. Same with Smart. And when you change your form you get a different result. And when you can't go back ->up-> over you extend your arm outward and have an incompetent trajectory. that's what all of those guys did.
I do think that there are cases of guys who shoot better with their hair being a natural set point, but that's what it is, it's in the way.

Hield -- most of the guys i critiqued in the video were really good college shooters. Like i also said in the video, even if you don't have to use that headspace for 3pt range, then maybe you do for midrange -- and that's because you have to shoot the ball up and over the rim when you're standing directly under it, right - you can't shoot anything of a flat shot when you're one 1foot away from the rim --- now protract and scale that back - you need more arch at 15feet than you do at 23feet for that same reason, just protract that back. And to get that arch you need to take the ball up and over more, which you can't do if your hair is in the way. DX stated that Hield was bad from midrange, maybe that's why.

I think Hield projects as a much better shooter than a guy like Johnson or Winslow did. Shooting was considered a weakness for both going into the draft.

I think most good shooters keep negative motion to a minimum...the ball goes up and forward. I don't think there are many guys who consistently "head" the ball that are effective shooters. Durant & CP3 are a couple of exceptions.

A guy like Smart had a broken jumper without hair too, in part because he headed the ball. He's changed that to a different, mechanically flawed form.

As for Russell, his percentage improved consistently throughout the year, and he didn't get a haircut. His percentage reduced because he was transitioning to the NBA, not because of his hair. A 41% to 35% change isn't that uncommon going from college to the NBA._________________Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK

It's all about their length, man. that's why each player's shot is different and forms can't be replicated. Crabbe must have long enough arms to shoot over his 'fro, it was plain as day in the vid that it made his shot flat as hell - who's to say he wouldn't be a better shooter if he didn't have to start his shot pocket all the way above his 'fro.

It's really common sense, in a more simple way - forget their shooting %. you saw where DLo took the ball above his hairline, and with hair he has to change it. Same with Smart. And when you change your form you get a different result. And when you can't go back ->up-> over you extend your arm outward and have an incompetent trajectory. that's what all of those guys did.
I do think that there are cases of guys who shoot better with their hair being a natural set point, but that's what it is, it's in the way.

Hield -- most of the guys i critiqued in the video were really good college shooters. Like i also said in the video, even if you don't have to use that headspace for 3pt range, then maybe you do for midrange -- and that's because you have to shoot the ball up and over the rim when you're standing directly under it, right - you can't shoot anything of a flat shot when you're one 1foot away from the rim --- now protract and scale that back - you need more arch at 15feet than you do at 23feet for that same reason, just protract that back. And to get that arch you need to take the ball up and over more, which you can't do if your hair is in the way. DX stated that Hield was bad from midrange, maybe that's why.

I think Hield projects as a much better shooter than a guy like Johnson or Winslow did. Shooting was considered a weakness for both going into the draft.

I think most good shooters keep negative motion to a minimum...the ball goes up and forward. I don't think there are many guys who consistently "head" the ball that are effective shooters. Durant & CP3 are a couple of exceptions.

A guy like Smart had a broken jumper without hair too, in part because he headed the ball. He's changed that to a different, mechanically flawed form.

As for Russell, his percentage improved consistently throughout the year, and he didn't get a haircut. His percentage reduced because he was transitioning to the NBA, not because of his hair. A 41% to 35% change isn't that uncommon going from college to the NBA.

... the vid showed 80different really good shooters "heading" the ball to some degree. And that's during the up and over motion - and if you can't use however many inches of that top of your head that you need during that up and over, you go Up and Out - and you get those incompetent outward releases and trajectories you saw.
Why shouldn't Stanley and Winslow have been halfway decent shooters as rookies if they shot 37% and 42% respectively in college? I know they weren't projected to be for some reason, but why?
The excuse for Russell's disappointing shooting has been strength, what about Stanley and Winslow.
I know there's an adjustment period to different 3pt lines, but these guys went from really good college shooters to being projected as Tony Allen's

.. The vid showed dozens upon dozens of good shooters heading the ball to some degree, and that space however far back on the head, is vital. For whatever excessive amount of heading that Marcus Smart would do, he shot better on 3s inside 25ft than Devin Booker in their respective rookie seasons.
But the point is, the hoard of shooters heading in that vid weren't doing to Smart's degree, but it was vital to them.

... the vid showed 80different really good shooters "heading" the ball to some degree. And that's during the up and over motion - and if you can't use however many inches of that top of your head that you need during that up and over, you go Up and Out - and you get those incompetent outward releases and trajectories you saw.

I genuinely feel that this is straight forward, and it's this simple. Combined with the fact that you saw guys natural motions having to be changed ... (yes,natural motions that headed the ball to some degree, large or small - like all of the good shooters in that vid)

... the vid showed 80different really good shooters "heading" the ball to some degree. And that's during the up and over motion - and if you can't use however many inches of that top of your head that you need during that up and over, you go Up and Out - and you get those incompetent outward releases and trajectories you saw.
Why shouldn't Stanley and Winslow have been halfway decent shooters as rookies if they shot 37% and 42% respectively in college? I know they weren't projected to be for some reason, but why?
The excuse for Russell's disappointing shooting has been strength, what about Stanley and Winslow.
I know there's an adjustment period to different 3pt lines, but these guys went from really good college shooters to being projected as Tony Allen's

.. The vid showed dozens upon dozens of good shooters heading the ball to some degree, and that space however far back on the head, is vital. For whatever excessive amount of heading that Marcus Smart would do, he shot better on 3s inside 25ft than Devin Booker in their respective rookie seasons.
But the point is, the hoard of shooters heading in that vid weren't doing to Smart's degree, but it was vital to them.

I don't think Korver heads the ball all that often, really. He'll do it a bit coming off of screens, because form slips a little bit when you're on the move, but on Catch & Shoots he doesn't. 1:10 of this video is an example. I'd venture a guess that most good shooters don't head the ball much when their feet are set. Love does too though, I forgot about him.

Devin Booker shot 40.9% on Catch & Shoot 3's as a rookie, compared to Smart's 36.3% mark on Catch & Shoot's as a rookie. Booker was shooting many more shots off of the dribble than Smart was.

Johnson and Winslow were low volume 3-point shooters, and Winslow had a very poor FT%, which is more indicative of NBA 3-point percentage than college 3-point percentage is.

There are several high caliber NBA shooters who shoot in front of their heads.